mlb_game_changes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, and the description only discloses the return structure. It does not mention behavior like what counts as a change, required authentication, rate limits, or error states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (two sentences) and includes the return shape, which is useful. However, it lacks parameter details that could be added without significant verbosity, making it somewhat under-specified for its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It should at minimum describe the required timestamp parameter and optional fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any parameter semantics. The 'updatedSince' format, 'fields' purpose, and 'sportId' valid values are omitted, leaving the AI agent without critical input guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it detects changed games since a timestamp, using a specific verb-resource structure. It implies a polling use case, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mlb_schedule or mlb_live_feed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides only a minimal cue ('polling helper') for when to use. It offers no guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.